Alternative transportation fuels have been represented as enablers to reduce toxic emissions in comparison to those generated by conventional fuels. At the same time, tighter emission standards and significant innovation in catalyst formulations and engine controls has led to dramatic improvements in the low emission performance and robustness of gasoline and diesel engine systems. This has certainly reduced the environmental differential between optimized conventional and alternative fuel vehicle systems. However, many technical challenges remain to make the conventionally fueled internal combustion engine a nearly zero emission system having the efficiency necessary to make the vehicle commercially viable.
Alternative fuels cover a wide spectrum of potential environmental benefits, ranging from incremental toxic and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission improvements (reformulated gasoline, alcohols, LPG, etc.) to significant toxic and CO2 emission improvements (natural gas, DME, etc.). Hydrogen is clearly the ultimate environmental fuel, with potential as a nearly emission free internal combustion engine fuel (including CO2 if it comes from a non-fossil source). Unfortunately, the market-based economics of alternative fuels, or new power train systems, are uncertain in the short to mid-term.
The automotive industry has made very significant progress in reducing automotive emissions in both the mandated test procedures and the “real world”. This has resulted in some added cost and complexity of engine management systems, yet those costs are offset by other advantages of computer controls: increased power density, fuel efficiency, drivability, reliability, and real-time diagnostics.
Future initiatives to require zero emission vehicles appear to be taking us into a new regulatory paradigm where asymptotically smaller environmental benefits come at a very large incremental cost. Yet, even an “ultra low emission” certified vehicle can emit high emissions in limited extreme ambient and operating conditions, with failed, or degraded components.
One approach to addressing the issue of emissions is the employment of electrochemical cells or fuel cells, particularly solid oxide fuel cells (“SOFC”), in an automobile. A fuel cell is an energy conversion device that generates electricity and heat by electrochemically combining a gaseous fuel, such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, or a hydrocarbon, and an oxidant, such as air or oxygen, across an ion-conducting electrolyte. The fuel cell converts chemical energy into electrical energy.
A SOFC may be used in conjunction with a reformer that converts a fuel to hydrogen and carbon monoxide (the reformate) usable by the fuel cell. Three types of reformer technologies are typically employed (steam reformers, dry reformers, and partial oxidation reformers) to convert hydrocarbon fuel (methane, propane, natural gas, gasoline, etc.) to hydrogen using water, carbon dioxide, and oxygen, respectfully, with byproducts including carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, accordingly. These reformers typically operate at high temperatures. At lower temperatures, e.g., during startup, deposition of carbon (or soot) upon the catalyst can adversely affect the reformer efficiency and reduce reformer life. Major requirements for the reformers are rapid start, dynamic response time, fuel conversion efficiency, size, and weight.
Various methods of introducing the reformate to the SOFC have been utilized. These methods typically include direct interfaces or restrictive orifice between the reformer and the SOFC. Typically, a restrictive orifice is employed. Such a configuration however, lacks the ability to adequately regulate the amount of reformate that is applied to the SOFC to control the SOFC output.
What is needed in the art then, is method and apparatus, which allows the regulation of the reformate delivered to a SOFC.